Re: A Survey

En réponse à Adam Walker :

>Thanks for mentioning this Padraic.  This is something
>I've been trying to puzzle out for C-a in recent days.
>  This V-se construction doesn't seem to exist in Latin
>(or is my ignorance showint again),
Latin does have a reflexive pronoun though: "se".


>I'm finding it an uncomfortable construction for C-a
>at present.  Currently C-a is strictly SOV with only
>adverbs or adverbials allowed after the verb.  This
>has also caused trouble with forming questions that
>don't have an interrogative word.  I've thought of
>using "si" after the verb as a question
>particle/interrogative adverb. but that would utterly
>rule out the V-se construction for reflexives.  Would
>se-V work?
Why don't you use one of Latin's question particles? It had enough of them! 
Take for instance the clitic -ne (which liked being put behind the verb, or 
the word the question was about), the particle "num", or the expression 
"utrum... an..." for alternative questions, and then the different mixings 
(nonne, anne, utrumne, annon, etc...) :)) . I'd think with so many 
possibilities you could find something that wouldn't conflict with a reflexive.

>I've been considering a dramatic re-work of C-a that
>would draw on the punic substrate to make C-a a VSO
>language.  does anyone out there know of any
>rom(con)langs that are SOV or VSO who can explain/give
>examples how they handle reflexives and questions
>without interrogatives?
The only Romance language I know which is SOV is Latin itself. It usually 
marked questions with one of the particles I talked about, or with a 
question word (which was always first), or just by intonation. It didn't 
usually change word order for that (many languages don't change word order 
in questions).

Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang. 

Reply